The Workplace and Alcohol Problem Prevention

Workplace programs to prevent and reduce alcohol-related problems among employees have considerable potential. For example, because employees spend a lot of time at work, coworkers and supervisors may have the opportunity to notice a developing alcohol problem. In addition, employers can use their influence to motivate employees to get help for an alcohol problem. Many employers offer employee assistance programs (EAPs) as well as educational programs to reduce employees’ alcohol problems. However, several risk factors for alcohol problems exist in the workplace domain. Further research is needed to develop strategies to reduce these risk factors.

A s a domain for alcohol-problem prevention, the workplace holds great promise. In the United States and, increasingly, around the world, the majority of adults who are at risk for alcohol problems are employed. As described here, employers have several well-defined means at their disposal for intervening with problem drinking. Those methods serve not only the interests of the employer but also those of the employees and their dependents. Furthermore, the potential for a preventive impact is worldwide. Western styles of workplace organization and employment relationships have spread to influence global practices, setting the stage for the diffusion of workplace interventions and for addressing emerging economies' increasing alcohol problems (Masi 2000;Roman in press).
Despite these possibilities, the devel opment of prevention programs in U.S. workplaces has slowed considerably in recent years and, in fact, may be in need of revitalization (Roman and Baker 2001; Roman in press). The decline in work-place attention to alcohol problems illustrates the need for creating and maintaining an infrastructure for sus taining alcohol interventions in settings not typically associated with the deliv ery of health care. This article will first review the opportunities workplaces provide for preventing alcohol problems-people spend a large amount of time at the workplace and employers may use their leverage to motivate an employee to seek help for an alcohol problem. The article also will discuss the use of employee assistance programs (EAPs) and complementary programs to reduce employee alcohol problems and then examine risk factors for alcohol problems that exist in the work environment.

Tracing the Development of Workplace Programs
The significant presence of alcohol prob lems in the workforce was most recently documented in a 1997 national survey, indicating that about 7.6 percent of full-time employees are heavy drinkers (i.e., they consumed five or more drinks per occasion on 5 or more days in the month prior to being surveyed) (Zhang et al. 1999). According to that study, about one-third of the heavy drinkers also used illegal drugs.
Workplaces have introduced programs to prevent and treat alcohol and other drug (AOD) abuse among employees, especially over the past 25 years. The goal of many of these programs has been "human resource conservation"; that is, the programs strive to ensure that employees maintain their careers and productivity (Roman and Blum 1999). Although the programs vary considerably in their structure, they may include health promotion, education, and referral to AOD abuse treatment when needed. Most of these programs focus on early identification of a problem or helping those already affected by a problem (i.e., secondary prevention) rather than targeting the general popu lation (i.e., primary prevention). Three separate studies show that the majority of American employers offer EAPs, which potentially may provide services to help eliminate drinking in the workplace (Zhang et al. 1999;Hartwell et al. 1996;. Despite the widespread use of such programs, however, no data from a representative sam ple of EAPs are available to support the usefulness of these programs.

Opportunities for Workplace Prevention
The workplace provides several potent opportunities for implementing AOD abuse prevention strategies, including: • The majority of adults are employed, making the workplace an ideal set ting to reach a large population.
• Full-time employees spend a signifi cant proportion of their time at work, increasing the possibility of exposure to preventive messages or programs offered through the workplace. The likelihood that evidence of problem drinking will become visible to those who might have a role in intervention also is increased.
• Work plays an important role in most people's lives. Because many adults' roles in the family and com munity are dependent on maintain ing the income, status, and prestige that accompanies employment, the relationship between the employer and the employee contains a degree of "leverage." The employer has the right to expect an adequate level of job performance. If alcohol abuse breaches the rules of the employer-employee agreement or is associated with substandard job performance, the employer may withdraw pay or privileges associated with the job, thus motivating the employee with alcohol problems to change his or her behavior.

Primary and Secondary Prevention in the Workplace
Workplace programs include both pri mary and secondary prevention. Primary prevention aims to keep alcohol prob lems from developing, and secondary prevention seeks to reduce existing problems. Researchers have voiced con cerns that workplace programs overemphasize secondary prevention (Ames and Janes 1992). Primary prevention often is more cost-effective than sec ondary prevention; however, the workplace is not conducive to strategies aimed at preventing alcohol use. Most employees are adults and therefore are legally allowed to consume alcohol. Employers rarely are in a position to prevent their employees from initiating drinking as an off-the-job lifestyle prac tice, nor do they desire to do so. At the same time, employers want their employees to perform their jobs well and not disrupt or endanger cowork ers' activities. Smooth work transactions with customers and other members of the public also are important in many organizations, including the service sector.
Alcohol problems in the workplace are identified by these two, or sometimes three, events: 1. The linkage of a drinking pattern with job performance problems, such as a pattern of poor-quality work, poor quantity of work, attendance problems, or problems related to interaction with clients or customers. 2. Employees' decisions that their drink ing behaviors are causing problems for themselves and they desire assis tance, leading to a self-referral to a source of assistance in the workplace. 3. In some settings, a coworker's identi fication of an apparent alcohol prob lem is used to refer an employee for workplace-based assistance. This is the primary approach used in Member Assistance Programs, which have developed in some labor union set tings (Bacharach et al. 1996).

EAPs: Addressing Employees' Alcohol Problems
EAPs are the most common interven tion used in the workplace to address alcohol problems. EAPs have distinctive features that set them apart from pre vention strategies used in other settings. Their goal is to prevent loss of employ ment and to assure that employed peo ple continue their careers and produc tivity without interruption. EAPs can thus prevent both employer and the employee from suffering the costly consequences of the employee's job loss.

EAP Referral Routes and the EAP Process
Self-Referrals. Early in the develop ment of the EAP model, researchers proposed that such programs would ideally operate by primarily attracting self-referrals rather than "coerced" refer rals (Wrich 1973). Given that denial and resistance are common barriers to alcohol treatment, this was an unusual idea. Wrich (1973) claimed that signifi cant rates of self-referral would increase the program's credibility by demonstrating "consumer confidence." In contrast, a program centered on supervisory referrals, which may or may not involve coercive pressure to use EAP services, implies a "correctional" image for the EAP. On the surface, this ideal appears to have been achieved. Nearly all reports generated about EAP usage indicate a predominance of self-referrals. In those relatively rare instances where EAP referral processes have been examined in depth, the vast majority of cases are classified upon entry as "self-referrals" . However, these self-referrals may actually reflect cases in which employees were prompted by others to seek EAP assistance (described as "informal referrals" below). One study  found that only 18 percent of male and 22 percent of female referrals to EAPs with alcohol problems were "genuine" self-referralsthat is, those people reported it was their personal decision that drove them to seek help . Most of these employees reported few job problems. Through confidential ques tionnaires, they reported that the fol lowing three features of service access were essential in their decisions to seek help: (1) a professionally competent source of assistance was available for a range of personal difficulties, including alcohol problems; (2) service was pro vided by the employer; and (3) employ ees could use the service with assurance of confidentiality and without penalty to any aspect of their job status.
Informal Referrals. Another route to consulting EAPs is through informal referrals. In such cases, the referral is prompted by considerable social interaction and discussion, often involving an employee's supervisor. Most of the referral processes are informal-about 80 percent of alcoholproblem referrals (self-referrals are included in this group)-and 20 percent are formal supervisory referrals . Although EAPs were originally designed as mechanisms for formal supervisory referral of problem employees, these figures show that they were quickly transformed into sources of help that people reached without going through explicitly formal channels. For reasons that are largely self-evident, both supervisors and subordinates pre fer these informal procedures. The dis advantage of the informal referral is that there is no official record of the employee being referred to the EAP or of any related job performance problems.
Formal Referrals. When external inter vention is required, formal referrals are used. Such cases are prompted by a supervisor detecting a decline in job performance that cannot be explained by the conditions of work. Supervisors are urged to consult with EAP staff before taking action to assure that they are conforming to workplace policy. Procedures call for the supervisor to constructively confront employees if they deny their performance problems or are not willing to take corrective action. In such a confrontation, the supervisor presents evidence of the employee's performance problems and points out that disciplinary measures will ensue if the problems are not cor rected. A referral to the EAP is offered as a means for problem correction.
Should the employee elect to use the company program, the EAP coordina tor conducts an assessment or arranges for a diagnosis of the employee's problem. The coordinator or diagnostic agent then offers advice as to how the problem might be handled. Counseling or treat ment at a community agency follows, with arrangements usually made by the EAP coordinator to assure the best match between quality of care and financial coverage available through the workplace.
It is important to emphasize that the use of treatment or counseling is a decision made by the employee and not a mandate from the employer. The employee is responsible for payment for services that the company's health plan does not cover.

The EAP's Role in Followup and Relapse Prevention
After using EAP services and receiving counseling and treatment, the employee should ideally go through a period when his or her symptoms are in remission. However, relapse during the posttreat ment period is very common for those with AOD problems. These relapses may account for what many regard as the disappointing overall success rates of alcohol-problem treatment and may have little or nothing to do with the qual ity of EAP services provided.
Relapse prevention encompasses a different range of interventions. Researchers often disregard it as a form of alcohol-abuse prevention. In many respects, the recovering person is set on a pathway of starting over, and it seems reasonable to conceptualize the preven tion of relapse as primary prevention of the alcohol problem. Treatment programs vary greatly in the extent to which such services are provided after treatment ends. EAPs and workplaces can play impor tant roles in relapse prevention, however. Opportunities for relapse prevention lie in the nature of work and access to employees who are attempting to main tain recovery. Unlike the community setting, where followup requires find ing clients and/or motivating them to return to the treatment setting for aftercare counseling, the workplace has built-in opportunities to reach these persons and provide counseling and support necessary to sustain recovery. And it is also easier for the recovering employee to seek assistance, as needed, to assure recovery gains. Such an oppor tunity might not apply in the instance of an employee who had recovered from an alcohol problem prior to employment and did not desire to reveal this fact to a new employer.
Many EAPs include followup and relapse prevention to help employees maintain recovery. Only one research study, however, has systematically inves tigated the impact of such services. In that study, Foote and Erfurt (1991) examined the effects of posttreatment followup contact among a group of 164 EAP clients treated for alcohol problems over a period of 1 year. The tendency to relapse was significantly lower in the followup group, compared with a group of 161 similar clients who did not receive followup contact, indicating the efficacy of followup for relapse prevention.

EAP Effectiveness and Maximizing EAP Use
A review  of a wide range of published and unpub lished evaluation research concludes that EAPs produce far more in savings than they require in costs. A series of evaluation studies indicated that the programs succeeded in returning sub stantial proportions of employees with alcohol problems to effective performance (Asma et al. 1980;Edwards et al. 1973;Eggum et al. 1980;Flynn et al. 1993;Gam et al. 1983;McAllister 1993;Spickard and Tucker 1984;Walsh et al. 1991Walsh et al. , 1992. Most of the research supporting this conclusion has method ological limitations, however. None of the studies involved rigorous comparisons with settings where no EAP services were available. In addition, by examining clinical or performance outcomes among employees who have received treatment or counseling via EAP case management (which often includes followup), it is not possible to separate the effects of EAP services from other aspects of the referral-and-treatment process.
How can EAP utilization be maxi mized? Three published studies (Googins and Kurtz 1981;Hoffman and Roman 1984;Colan and Schneider 1992), dif fering in design and methods, reached the common conclusion that supervi sory training significantly increased positive attitudes toward EAPs, increased the perceived likelihood of utilizing the service, and actually produced greater service utilization. The impact of train ing deteriorated over time, as would be expected, indicating the need for ongo ing and repeated "boosters" to sustain attention to the service.

Complements to EAPs
Because off-the-job drinking can affect worker performance and health but not necessarily reflect an alcohol problem that would result in an EAP referral, some employers offer programs to com plement an existing EAP. Such programs are designed to educate employees about the potential effects of drinking and to encourage employees to seek help from an EAP when needed.
Epidemiological data cited earlier (Zhang et al. 1999) indicate that many employed people drink heavily or engage in binge drinking when they are away from work, leading to a variety of adverse consequences and problems (Calahan and Room 1974). Employers have valid reasons for motivating these employees to change their drinking patterns, as this type of problem drinking likely will have an impact on the workplace, although not necessarily in ways that are visible or even measurable.
Several recent studies have addressed the effects of hangovers on work per formance. Hangovers affect cognitive and motor functions, creating risks of bad judgment, interpersonal conflict, and injuries (Moore 1998). Using observational and questionnaire data in an on-site study, Ames and colleagues (1997) concluded that hangovers are a significant contributor to job performance problems, yet discussions of alcohol's impact on the workplace rarely recognize the costs of hangovers. Combining survey and observational techniques at multiple corporate sites, Mangione and colleagues (1999) reached similar conclusions about the hidden and subtle impact of hangovers on work performance.
As Moore (1998) pointed out, hangovers are clearly alcohol-related problems in the workplace but are extremely dif ficult to address through specific inter ventions because people define hangover differently. Mangione and colleagues (1999) suggested that employee educa tion and corporate policy materials should include information about the potentially adverse effects of off-the-job drinking on workplace behavior and job performance.

Alcohol Education Programs
The principal means for addressing an employee's off-the-job drinking is through alcohol education programs conducted at the worksite. These programs usually are associated with an EAP, a health promotion program, or both. The goal of these education programs often is to encourage behavioral change or use of the associated services (i.e., self-referral to an EAP).
Several studies have examined the impact of alcohol education. In an early study, McLatchie and colleagues (1981), using 90-and 30-minute training sessions with supervisors and with employees, respectively, found significant changes in alcohol attitudes immediately follow ing the sessions. Brochu and Souliere (1988) examined the impact of a "life skills re-education program" on chang ing new employees' attitudes toward AODs. Although the study found sig nificant effects of the program based on data collected immediately and after 1 month, followup at 36 months indi cated no sustained effects.
A similar study by Kishchuk and colleagues (1994) tested a program designed to make employees' drinking behaviors healthier and more socially responsible. Followup data collected 1 month later revealed modest impacts on attitudes and behavior. A placebo treatment providing nutrition education delivered to a comparison group also produced modest but significant changes in drinking, leading to the suggestion that the experience of training rather than its content may have notable impor tance. Another study evaluated a com prehensive approach to altering people's drinking behavior as well as workplace culture in the 3M Company (Stoltzfus and Benson 1994). This program included a 10-hour supervisory training section, a 2.5-hour section for employees to discuss policies and their behavior, and a peer helper section. The pilot program was conducted at a Midwestern site matched with a comparison plant. Results showed that participants had lower alcohol consumption, lower incidence of work performance negatively affected by AOD use, and improved prevention skills.
In a similar study, Cook and colleagues (1996a) field-tested the Working People Program with 108 employees. The foursession training program significantly affected self-reported alcohol consump tion and motivated employees to reduce consumption and the problem conse quences of drinking. In another study of 371 employees randomly assigned to experimental and control groups, Cook and colleagues (1996b) evaluated the effects of three classroom sessions that used videos and booklets about AOD issues. Results from this study also indi cated a significant increase in the moti-

Alcohol Research & Health
Hangovers are a significant contributor to job performance problems, yet discussions of alcohol's impact on the workplace rarely recognize the costs of hangovers. vation to reduce alcohol use among the a wellness program. Further, Shain and group receiving the training.
colleagues (1986) observe that healthy The studies described here generally lifestyles and alcohol abuse are incom reported beneficial effects of workplace-patible. They contend that the nesting based education on drinking behavior. of alcohol issues within larger health This research has certain limitations, concerns is a highly effective means of however. None of the studies replicates motivating behavioral change toward earlier findings; that is, each study less risky drinking and a healthier stands alone. Further, the effects of the lifestyle in general. training usually were measured imme diately or shortly after the sessions Peer Intervention ended. In the one study with a longer followup period, the positive effects As deviant drinking patterns become deteriorated completely (Brochu and more chronic and pervasive in an Souliere 1988). Overall, three sugges-employed person's life, his or her job tions come from this research. First, performance will eventually be affected. alcohol education appears to be a use-Coworkers may notice job perfor ful investment, showing significant mance problems before such problems effects in all reported studies. Second, become evident to supervisors. the data suggest that these effects need Employee alcohol education programs boosters if they are to be sustained, a may prepare peers to suggest assistance finding common to most educational to one another, but this has not been interventions. Third, it is clear that documented. More specifically, the more research is needed to specify the techniques of peer intervention programs training content required to improve may be useful for addressing early efficacy and the durability of effects.
problem behaviors, as has been docu mented among unionized workers (Bacharach et al. 1996). Peer interven tion is not applicable in all settings, only In addition to alcohol education pro-where it is possible to tap into what grams, employers also may offer health Bacharach and his colleagues call "com promotion programs, which may moti-munal voluntarism," or a committed vate employees to alter their drinking desire of workers to look out for each behaviors. When health problems such other's well-being. as weight, high blood pressure, or gas-Peer-assistance programs have been tric problems are identified in a health implemented among professional groups risk survey administered at the work-such as physicians, dentists, psycholo site, the administering health worker gists, attorneys, and airline pilots. Little may suggest a reduction in drinking is known about the operation of these as a means of alleviating the primary interventions among professionals symptom. Alternatively, employees because they are conducted with high undertaking exercise programs or other levels of confidentiality. Research has health-oriented activities might change been conducted, however, on uniontheir drinking behavior because drink-based Member Assistance Programs ing may not be consistent with their (Bacharach et al. 1994; Bamberger and new healthy regimen.

Health Promotion Programs
Sonnenstuhl 1995). These programs are Research on the impact of workplace reported to be highly effective, although health promotion programs on employee the extent to which they may provide drinking is sparse. Shain and colleagues early identification of alcohol problem (1986) collected short-term evaluative behaviors has not been documented. data in several Canadian settings indi- The programs described in this sec cating that health promotion and well-tion primarily address the effects of off ness programs can significantly reduce the-job drinking and are designed to employee drinking. In particular, the educate and aid employees. Participation authors state that heavy drinkers are in such programs is almost always vol characterized by a series of unhealthy untary. A considerably different employer behaviors that can be addressed through attitude is found toward on-the-job drinking, which in most settings has been prohibited for many decades. Because drinking on the job can jeopardize the safety of the employee, the workplace, and the public, workplace alcohol policies are designed to set clear limits on alcohol use and establish consequences for employees who do not observe these limits.

Workplace Policies Regarding Drinking on the Job and Alcohol Testing
As part of workplaces' "rules of conduct" or "fitness for duty" regulations, supervisors are often empowered to disci pline or remove an employee from the job on the suspicion of drinking. However, if an employee is suspected of drink ing based on evidence such as odor of alcohol or appearance of intoxication, the employee may object, which could lead to litigation. When alcohol use is suspected, alcohol testing can be used to establish whether the employee was in fact drinking. Specific techniques include both breath testing and blood testing. Macdonald (1997) asserts that alco hol testing is important in the workplace because drinking is distinctively linked to performance impairment, particularly when compared with other drugs. Alcohol testing is currently mandated for the transportation industry through Federal regulations. Alcohol testing is most commonly used in other workplace settings when cause is estab lished, particularly in response to onthe-job accidents. In such cases, alcohol testing is critical in establishing possible culpability, especially if injuries have occurred. When alcohol tests are posi tive, case dispositions may vary accord ing to company policy, ranging from dismissal to the offering of counseling or treatment under the auspices of an EAP. These actions appear to have sub stantial employee support. In a multisite survey of 6,540 employees, 81 percent were in favor of alcohol testing following a workplace accident, and 49 percent indicated support for random alcohol testing in the workplace (Howland et al. 1996).

Risk Factors in the Work Environment
Compared with EAPs, prevention efforts focused on reducing risk factors in the work environment may offer the greatest potential payoff. This approach is the most problematic in terms of imple mentation, however. One possible avenue would be to identify and alter work environments that have "toxic" connec tions to alcohol problems. Employers would be reluctant, however, to partici pate in efforts that might highlight their liability in creating high-risk environments.
Despite the potential problems in implementing interventions to reduce risk factors in the workplace, research has examined several work-related fac tors that may contribute to alcohol use and related problems among employees. These risk factors are described below.

Stress
Many studies have found significant but relatively small associations between stress in the workplace and elevated levels of alcohol consumption. For example, in one early study using sur vey data, Fennell and colleagues (1981) reported that employees' reasons for drinking were found to be associated with stress-inducing job characteristics, but the correlations were relatively weak. In a national survey of employed persons, Martin and Roman (1996) found that lower job satisfaction and higher job stress both were risks for increased drinking. Lehman and colleagues (1995) reported significant associations between employee AOD use and lower job sat isfaction, less faith in management, and lower involvement with and commitment to the job. Parker and Farmer (1990) reported significant associations between drinking and job burnout. Greenberg and Grunberg (1995) found negative associations between employee drinking behavior and reported job autonomy and job satisfaction.
Although this research may suggest certain preventive interventions, such as reducing work-related stress and increasing job satisfaction, it is unclear how to implement such changes. For example, although some workers may apparently drink less if their job satis faction is enhanced, there are multiple sources of job satisfaction, some related to the job and others to a combination of a person's background and his or her job characteristics. In addition, the direction of the relationships between stress or job dissatisfaction and drink ing is unknown. For example, drinking and other drug use could contribute to the reports of work stress found in these studies. That is, employees experienc ing the ongoing detrimental effects of off-the-job drinking may have greater difficulty in coping with "normal" workplace pressures.
Thus, to date, research has not yielded enough compelling evidence to guide the creation of workplace programs tar geting work-related stress and job dis satisfaction with the goal of reducing alcohol problems. More research is nec essary to specify the stress-drinking linkage and to identify the characteris tics of workers most likely to be at risk for stress-related drinking. Such research also needs to examine the costs and benefits to employers of implementing changes that would influence worker stress, job satisfaction, and drinking.

Alienation
Whereas work stress may be temporary, worker alienation is a considerably more pervasive and problematic risk factor among employed persons. Alienation relates to the employee's broader sense of identity and control and has consid erable implications for overall mental well-being. Seeman and colleagues (Seeman and Anderson 1983;Seeman et al. 1988) reported strong associations between alienation from work and employees' drinking behavior, although others (Blum 1984;Parker and Farmer 1990) have challenged the methodology of their work. Lehman and colleagues (1995) also found an association between employee AOD use and estrangement or alienation from the job. In another study that focused on interpersonal conflict in the workplace, Rospenda and colleagues (2000) reported that "generalized workplace abuse" from supervisors or work peers was positively associated with increased drinking.
Although the above studies reported statistically significant findings, the reported relationships between workplace alienation and employee drinking are not powerful. As in the case of work stress, the direction of the relationship must be considered. For instance, prob lem drinkers have been shown to have impaired social relationships, which may contribute to alienation in the workplace.
Several emergent managerial strate gies may directly address employee alienation and, in turn, influence the drinking that may be associated with alienation. These strategies are encom passed under the broad rubric of "par ticipative management." This approach, which calls for the involvement of employees in planning and decisionmaking about their work, is not predi cated on reducing employee alienation but on enhancing their involvement, interest, and productivity. Reducing worker alienation may be an unantici pated side-effect. Participative manage ment should not be viewed generically, for its implementation can vary greatly. One study (Barker 1993) found evi dence to strongly suggest that under some conditions, participative manage ment may create or escalate the very types of stress that have been linked with increased employee drinking in other research.

Cultures and Subcultures
Worksites' cultures and subcultures may have differential effects on encour aging or discouraging drinking and substance abuse. Cosper (1979) intro duced the concepts that occupations have widely variant drinking norms associated with their cultures and that workers are differentially socialized into drinking according to their occupational choices. These concepts are augmented by the notion that heavy-drinking occupations attract job seekers who are prone to these behaviors, which is sug gested, for example, by survey results that show high rates of heavy drinking among bartenders and restaurant work ers as compared with other employed persons (Hoffman et al. 1997).
Clearly these drinking norms are differentially introduced into the occupational mixes found in workplaces. tated the social control of alcohol probmay be challenged. This apparent lack Ames and Delaney (1992) studied a lems whereas the traditional design of demand for such research may sug large manufacturing plant in which appeared to undermine such control. gest that attention to workplace AOD on-the-job drinking and other drug Beattie and colleagues (1992) develabuse through these mechanisms may use were unexpectedly prevalent. They oped and partially validated an instrube declining (Roman in press). viewed these behaviors as partly reflecting ment they titled "Your Workplace" There may be parallels in successfully an organizational culture that had (YWP), which can be used in job sites addressing alcohol problems in the emerged around AOD and that encour-to measure the extent to which the workplace and in primary and specialty aged and tolerated their presence. medical care settings. The workplace Other examples of workplace drinking exist as well. Mangione and colleagues (1999) reported a large-scale survey of drinking in a sample of corporations and identified microcultures that encourage damaging and costly on-the-job drink ing and tolerance of hangovers. Sonnenstuhl (1996) described a patho logical drinking culture that developed over nearly a century and that encour aged heavy and dangerous on-and offthe-job drinking among miners in New York City known as Sandhogs. However, Sonnenstuhl's work is unique in that he documented the introduction of a "sobriety culture" among the Sandhogs through the emergence and on-the-job presence of coworkers who were recover ing from alcoholism. The sobriety cul ture apparently tempered the excesses of the heavy drinking culture and cre ated behavioral alternatives for those who did not want to drink heavily.
In a study that is uniquely valuable in substantiating the importance of organizational culture in preventing alcohol problems among employees, Ames and colleagues (2000) compared two work settings with distinctly differ ent managerial cultures. One setting had a traditional hierarchical U.S. management design and the other was based on a Japanese management model transplanted to the United States. Although overall alcohol consumption rates in both populations were similar, the traditional management design was associated with more permissive norms regarding drinking before or during work shifts (including breaks) and higher workplace drinking rates. By contrast, the transplant management design was associated with greater enforcement of alcohol policies, which, in turn, pre dicted more conservative drinking norms and lower alcohol availability at work. Qualitative research clearly indi cated that the transplant design facili-workplace culture encourages drinking. Subsequent analysis of YWP found a strong and positive correlation between tolerance and encouragement of drinking by the workplace culture and clients' levels of alcohol involvement (Rice et al. 1997).
Developing interventions that address problematic workplace cultures is challenging. Some researchers suggest that employees should face increasingly severe punishment for repeated on-thejob AOD use as a consequence of workplace rule violations. Mangione and colleagues (1999) speculate that health promotion and wellness programming may curb risky drinking practices.

Conclusion
There is minimal current or recent research on the utility of EAPs and other mechanisms for addressing employed persons' alcohol problems, as can be established from searching the National Institutes of Health database on funded research. Consequently, the research bases that have supported particular interventions in the past are dated and their application in today's workplace domain and the medical care domain have the following in common: a great deal of preventive potential, the challenge of strongly competing goals within the domain, and problems of access for conducting research that meets scien tific standards. Research over the past decade suggests that relatively modest investments in infrastructure can pro duce significant results in terms of physicians' attention to alcohol prob lems (Fleming et al. 2000(Fleming et al. , 2002. An unspecified amount of such interven tion and treatment occurs under the auspices of private physicians, but its quality remains unknown without intrusive monitoring. The significant extent of AOD abuse treatment and psychiatric care in nonspecialty hospitals has been documented, but this research did not include evidence about the nature or quality of care (Kiesler and Simpkins 1993).
Several additional specific parallels between primary medical care and workplace-based interventions highlight problems relating to AOD abuse research and practice. First, primary care settings and workplaces are both diverse and thus are not conducive to simple data collection methods. Second, the structure and content of intervention and treatment that occur in primary medical care and in workplace settings are highly variable. Third, the extent of such intervention is voluntary for both primary care physicians and employers. Fourth, in most primary medical care settings and in most workplaces, atten tion to alcohol problems is not a high priority goal. Fifth, as in the workplace, alcohol problems often become evident in the course of primary medical care, and the potential for intervention is great, especially given the extent to which this high-risk population seeks primary medical care as compared with specialty care. Finally, as in the work-Vol. 26, No. 1, 2002 55

The Workplace and Alcohol Problem Prevention
In most primary medical care settings and in most workplaces, attention to alcohol problems is not a high priority goal.
place, there is very little research on the efficacy of the service delivery that occurs in these settings. Beyond these issues, several other barriers exist that make it difficult to implement prevention programming directed at workplace AOD abuse. Employers' resistance to workplace pre vention stem from the following issues: • Perceptions that data may uncover their liability for exacerbating AOD use and abuse • Concern that alcohol specialists do not understand the workplace and would introduce interventions that are impractical and costly • Lack of direct connections between alcohol problem interventions and workplace goals, with the connota tion that reducing alcohol problems benefits the individual and the pub lic good rather than the employer • Problematic research access as a result of the sheer amount of time required to collect data from employees in active workplaces and the disruptions that research can cause (Roman and Baker 2001).
Thus there can be little doubt of the need for additional research focused on the workplace and alcohol issues. Data are needed to link the findings of studies that identify factors in the workplace related to problem drinking with interventions that are acceptable to employers. Data are also needed on the efficacy of specific workplace practices that have been adopted and that are targeted at alcohol-related issues. Finally, data are needed on how to sustain the workplace's attention to employee alcohol issues in light of the competition of other goals and the intervention barriers unique to the workplace setting. I